Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
A theory is only evidence of what a scientist speculates on, it is not scientific fact. It is not a known. It is just a scientific guess, not scientific evidence.
The Scopes monkey trial did not prove evolution, as it did nothing but show that Biblical teachings are not a fact of science.
Had Jennings Bryan been a legitimate logical thinker, instead of a windbag pompous self righteous lawyer, he might have gotten across the point that neither science nor theology knows...there is just belief at a macro level beyond our ability to know, and that teaching neither would have been the correct secular way to go.
The Scopes monkey trial did not prove evolution, as it did nothing but show that Biblical teachings are not a fact of science.
Had Jennings Bryan been a legitimate logical thinker, instead of a windbag pompous self righteous lawyer, he might have gotten across the point that neither science nor theology knows...there is just belief at a macro level beyond our ability to know, and that teaching neither would have been the correct secular way to go.
Oh my! sure you trade a dozen markets
Perhaps you need to decide which is more important to you "trading" or losing an argument in the "politics and religion " forum and constantly calling on help from the non-belief belief of stu(pidity) .
you decide:eek:
No, a theory would not be evidence of anything but the opinion of a scientist. It is not a scientific fact in evidence. The testimony of a scientist is not an equivalent of a scientific fact. Please, please, think man.
Some scientific tests and examinations that are not universally accepted are nevertheless generally considered reliable. Some examples are neutron activation analysis to determine the identity of goods, voiceprints to determine a person's identity, and genetic testing or DNA analysis. These types of scientific procedures may be accepted in the medical communities, but they are not so established that they may be judicially noticed as automatically valid sources of scientific evidence. They may be admitted as evidence, but only after an expert witness has testified to the validity of the test.* In determining whether to admit scientific evidence from procedures that are not universally accepted, a court must ask whether the test is reliable. A technique's reliability depends on a number of factors, including whether the technique can be or has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, whether the test procedures have been published, whether the test has a margin of error and, if so, at what rate, and whether the technique, as applied, conformed to existing standards for the test (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 [1993]).
*Another expert witness can say the test is not valid. Which is exactly what happens in the court system, which is exactly what happens in the scientific community when there is not universal agreement.
Some scientific tests and examinations that are not universally accepted are nevertheless generally considered reliable. Some examples are neutron activation analysis to determine the identity of goods, voiceprints to determine a person's identity, and genetic testing or DNA analysis. These types of scientific procedures may be accepted in the medical communities, but they are not so established that they may be judicially noticed as automatically valid sources of scientific evidence. They may be admitted as evidence, but only after an expert witness has testified to the validity of the test.* In determining whether to admit scientific evidence from procedures that are not universally accepted, a court must ask whether the test is reliable. A technique's reliability depends on a number of factors, including whether the technique can be or has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, whether the test procedures have been published, whether the test has a margin of error and, if so, at what rate, and whether the technique, as applied, conformed to existing standards for the test (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 [1993]).
*Another expert witness can say the test is not valid. Which is exactly what happens in the court system, which is exactly what happens in the scientific community when there is not universal agreement.
Yes, he goes to the fish market and tries to trade baseball cards for fish, goes to the meat market and tries to trade a ball of string for some meat, goes to the vegetable market and tries to trade something from the fish market for vegetables...well, you get the drift.
Quote from LORD KAL-EL:
Oh my! sure you trade a dozen markets
Perhaps you need to decide which is more important to you "trading" or losing an argument in the "politics and religion " forum and constantly calling on help from the non-belief belief of stu(pidity) .
you decide:eek:
you are pretty fricken funny... before the definition of evidence of law was anathema... and now you are quoting cases out of context.
unexplained fine tunings are evidence of a tuner.
That does not mean the evidence has to be a scientific fact.
you had the definition of evidence all screwed up and now you are thrown pasta at the wall to see if anything will stick.
nice try by excellence with rhetoric does not replace logic and understanding.
Fine tunings are part of a theory, a guess, a speculation, not a fact of science.
You accuse me of throwing things against the wall hoping they stick?
You argue against evolution but argue for fine tunings?
Both are unproved, unprovable theories...but you select a theory that supports your theism and reject another theory...and think that is logical consistency of thinking?
A can't be established as scientific fact.
B can't be established as scientific fact.
I agree with B, therefore I'm going to say B is scientific fact because some scientists also agree with B.
Your logic...
You accuse me of throwing things against the wall hoping they stick?
You argue against evolution but argue for fine tunings?
Both are unproved, unprovable theories...but you select a theory that supports your theism and reject another theory...and think that is logical consistency of thinking?
A can't be established as scientific fact.
B can't be established as scientific fact.
I agree with B, therefore I'm going to say B is scientific fact because some scientists also agree with B.
Your logic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.
Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.
Fine tuning is not a scientific theory. Certain components of it may be compatible with known scientific facts but that does not make fine tuning / the anthropic principle - a scientific theory.
On the other hand Evolution is a fact. A proven fact, scientific fact and scientific theory.
Apparently it's usually when religious belief is involved, do proven facts magically become unproved, unprovable theories.